One is very well cognizant of the fact the above headline shall be perceived as controversial. Perhaps better to say, heretical bordering on insane. But, an objective and studious analysis of American history does not take such irrelevant emotional considerations into account.

The following may offend some, if not all.

If that be the case, then leave the page now and proceed to interest oneself in more inconsequential and ephemeral subject matter found featured on other blogs. Before falling into emotional hysteria, merely consider the merit of the arguments marshaled forth, and then utilize, if possible, some measure of dispassionate discernment.

A wise man of American letters, Samuel Clemens, once rightly proclaimed this concerning popularly accepted interpretations of American history as mythical folklore, that “one should not believe everything one hears, and even less of what one reads.”

On it’s face, the popularly accepted historical notion that an ill-clad, undernourished, ill-supplied, and poorly armed band of farmers and colonists untested by previous battle could field any sort of viable threat to what was, at that time during the 18th century, the most mighty and battle tested army in the history of organized warfare, much less defeat them in any sort of protracted military campaign is patently and utterly absurd.

But, that is not all folks.

For, as shall be documented in this next series of articles examining what could be construed as the true history of America’s founding, the commander in chief of this rag tag band of colonists armed with pitchforks and broken down muskets, George Washington, was not at all who history claims him to be. This revelation, shall be perhaps the most shocking of all!

Before presenting the dramatic denouement concerning the rather improbable events of the American Revolution and the actual identity of George Washington, one shall examine some of the events and personalities prior to this historical event not normally discovered or thoroughly observed in public school or university historical texts.

Yes, perhaps one could be accused of being overly dramatic with keeping one’s loyal readers in suspense. However, ultimate comprehension of the aforementioned premise is better served by first laying some historical groundwork, of the sort completely ignored by most American historical scholars. The great American iconoclast and man of letters, Upton Sinclair once wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Regarding the founding of America, the nation was firmly founded, in both the principles of governance and social philosophy, based upon Talmudic Judaism, which itself is a semantic trick veiling a deeper truth. Upon deeper examination, one discovers that the vaunted Hellenistic origins of democracy are but a thinly veiled concoction of Jesuit scholars. There has never been a democracy in the entirety of mankind’s history, nor does there exist now a democratic government in America, nor has one existed anywhere else, only the appearance or trappings of same. As a citizen or subject (and those terms are legally analogous, but more on these in a moment) you are still governed by Roman law.

Think about it folks, why would a self-governing people have any need for elected leaders, especially leaders who are merely hand picked puppets of the Crown Temple board of directors belonging to the masonic lodges controlled by a self-appointed ruling elite of Jesuit jackals?

In truth, Talmudic Judaism represents the principles of Fabian socialism, which is tied in with the philosophies held in secret by high degrees of Scottish Rite masonic orders. The philosophical nature of Fabianism can be found in the works of Frederick Nietzsche, Heinrich Hegel, Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ and even Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, a pre-revolution Federalist propaganda tract written at the behest of so-called founding father and high degree mason Benjamin Franklin.

The interconnecting principles of all of these works of philosophical scholarship are unity, brotherhood and fraternity. Unknown to most Americans, and apparently to most historical scholars, is that all of those terms reference the underlying motto of the international fraternal orders of Freemasonry, the true founding fathers of the American, French, and Bolshevik revolutions. The international masonic brotherhood is merely an instrument; they are the worker bees carrying out the political and social bidding of the ruling elite thirteen Jesuit families. How more than coincidental then, America was founded on the basis of thirteen colonies? No, this was far from coincidental, for the unfolding of mankind’s history does not occur merely by accidental happenstance. History is the recording of fraudulent events created out of whole cloth. Mainstream and popularly accepted historical scholarship is but a thinly veiled canard designed to conceal the truth.

In the cornerstone masonic manifesto Moral’s and Dogma composed by the late masonic grand master Albert Pike, the blueprint for world revolution was put forth. A cursory glance at the text will prove to anyone beyond shadow of doubt how history is made, and who is making it on behalf of the ruling elite royal Jesuit families. Going all the way back to the 16th century, thirteen elite Jesuit families charged the high masonic ranks, then led by Francis Bacon, with staging revolution to bring about the consolidation of their global governance, which in reality was declared in 1776. That is right folks, American scholarly texts written by so-called historians indicate American independence was declared, but it was ultimately never granted, because the colonies, to this day, are still subject to Roman law, which is known today as Uniform Commercial Code, or admiralty law.

This is why, whenever one tunes into MSNBC to watch ‘live coverage’ of whatever the actors going through the motions appearing to enact laws, one will notice the twin columns of Roman fasces (See: https://www.google.com/search?q=roman+fasces&oq=Rman+fas&aqs=chrom) displayed behind the speaker of the house as he stands at the podium to make his address. As with the passage of so-called history, what one witnesses going on in the American congress is merely a display of grand theater, filled with actors playing out their roles under the cover of pseudonyms.

One must, however begrudgingly, give credit to the utter patience and meticulous planning of the ruling elite families and the dedication of those courtiers throughout the centuries charged with carrying out their sinister bidding. With a thorough understanding of mass psychology, and with great foresight, they realized the great opposition to be overcome in merely declaring their global feudal order.

Thus, long ago, the ruling Jesuit families were advised by their learned courtiers that in order to cement the idea of a globalist philosophy into the minds of the masses and realize their great dream of a globalist order, such a plan could only be carried out under the utmost secrecy and with diligent patience. They were wisely advised incremental progress would be the best approach, utilizing whatever means necessary, whether political or social, in reaching the penultimate goal of global consolidation.

The American revolution was but one step in that direction, merely but one increment or part of the overarching plan. In fact, America, as a corporate entity, was formulated as a military instrument to be utilized in achieving globalist goals.

Sir Francis Bacon America’s true founding father

According to Francis Bacon, in his text ‘The New Atlantis’, conquest and settlement of the North American continent, with its potential for the mining of vast natural and human resources, would exist as an ideal beachhead from which to launch a powerful catalyst in the formation and realization of a globalist feudal order presided over by the thirteen elite Jesuit families.

How many times has one heard America referred to as ‘the world’s policeman’?

In truth, America was established as a corporate entity, subject to a monopoly corporate sovereign presided over by royal charter and bound by the terms and conditions of a contract with East India Tea Company. America continues to act on the world stage only at the behest of its true masters in Rome, the Jesuit military order of the Knights of Malta, and in cooperation with the London Crown Temple multi-national banking consortium (See: How Crown Temple rules America).

Everyone that sailed across the Atlantic in the seventeenth century and settled on America’s shores was still a subject of the crown, as all American citizens still are today. The terms subject and citizen, expressed in the founding Virginia charter, are legally synonymous:

“In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914

Yet another source more clearly states the lack of legal distinction between that which is considered a subject and a citizen:

“Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by its laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. vs, Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L. Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

Perhaps to illuminate even further, here is the definition really being used for the term “citizen” in American law, which is the same as that which is defined by Roman law:

“The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subject were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3rd century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.

Further still, as written in the Virginia Charter, the king declared his sovereignty over the land and his subjects. Therefore, in the commercial venture that was the settling of the North American continent, the king, upon his pleasure, declared the amount of gold, silver, and copper he was to receive from his subjects if any was to be found. This is what the Virginia Charter terms Jure Coronae, or according to Black’s Law fifth edition, “in the right of the crown.” The charter stipulates that the king’s heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver, and copper so claimed. These terms and conditions are still in effect today, in essence regulating every aspect connected to the commercial transfer of goods and commercial licensing.

Do yourselves one favor folks, and contemplate the implications. If the American colonialists truly defeated the British forces in pitched battle centuries ago, then why are Americans today still subject(s) to the terms and conditions set down in the Virginia Charter?

Most historical texts will inform those that initially settled upon what would become known as America’s shores were simple pilgrims absconding from what was perceived to be religious persecution. But, this is not so. King James I had in fact sent his subjects on a commercial venture held under royal charter. The ruling elite Jesuit families knew that one of the foundation stones of their Utopian scheme had to be the acquisition and subsequent legal claim to land and therefore any and all natural resources existing on and under the land. This they had already done in the Mediterranean and the Far East.

Sir Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis was in many ways the first to represent a blueprint for colonization of America, and advocated the idea that the North American continent as a whole “would become a paradise in which men would follow reason, become gods and work for a universal republic that would then replicate the Utopian conditions of America throughout the known world.”

Does this sound familiar folks? Why, it should.

For, Bacon’s sentiments were echoed by President George W. Bush during the run-up to America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, that America only sought to “bring democracy to the world.” It must be noted Bacon was a Rosicrucian, a secret society of elite European nobility harboring grand global schemes and Utopian philosophies based on Pythagoras and Plato’s Republic (a text expressing the idea that only the elite were fit to rule) that would eventually evolve into the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, the first lodge of which was established on American shores in Boston and known as St. John’s Lodge.

Today, the Scottish Rite’s Northern jurisdiction is centered in Lexington, Massachusetts, the location of the first alleged skirmish between colonialist regulars and British forces. The Jesuit superior in Rome is the true master of the international brotherhood of Freemasonry, and the Jesuit order was responsible for composing all the Rites. Unless one is unclear concerning the true nature of Freemasonry, allow one to present a quote from one of the order’s most elder and respected brothers, Manly P. Hall, direct from page 3 of his 1944 text, “The Secret Destiny of America”:

“Freemasonry is the Church of Satan masquerading as a fraternal mystical philanthropic order. It fronts for Masonic and Cabalist central bankers who started the US as a vehicle to advance their New World Order.”

There it is folks, straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. And yet, does one think the shills attacking Newsspellcom.org will ever bother to take a trip to their local library to check this information out for themselves? Not a chance! Most of them don’t read and don’t possess enough wit to slander beyond the standard ad hominems assigned to them by their equally witless handlers.

Better still, one consulted another source conveniently overlooked by mainstream historical scholars, Bernard Fay’s text published in 1935, entitled “Revolution and Freemasonry.” In this text, Fay explains that the original thirteen American colonies were rather isolated by religious affiliations, customs, racial profiles, as well as governing political structures. But, the brotherhood of masons had a solution to unite the disparate colonies by appearing to foment a revolution. Knowing that most colonists were in fact still considered themselves loyal to the British crown, they knew nothing short of the most egregious psychological manipulations would stir them to emotional furor in opposition to the crown. However, as any American can attest who remembers the surreal events of September 11, 2001, nothing unites a people against a common enemy, real or imagined, like the concept of fomented war, even under the flimsiest of pretext. Fay goes on to explain exactly what the brotherhood of masonry planned to do in uniting the American colonies:

“Masonry alone undertook to lay the foundation for national unity in America because, as a secret society, it could spread throughout the colonies and work steadily and silently. It created a limited but very prominent class of people a feeling of American unity without which there would have been no United States.”

Still think conspiracy isn’t the engine behind the revolutionary thrust of history folks?

Think again! To think otherwise is foolhardy at best, and naive at the very worst.

Boston Tea Party

The masons are masters of theater, and historically recorded events such as Paul Revere’s ride (Revere was a high degree mason belonging to the St. John’s lodge) and even the famous Boston Tea Party were just that, theatrical presentations designed to create iconic images that would reflect upon the memory of historical posterity. In truth, those that participated in the so-called party were sworn masons, partaking in staged theater designed to place in the minds of the hoi polloi something revolutionary may have been happening.

In the second installment of this series of articles, one shall detail the misconceptions and outright prevarications put forth by American historical scholars concerning the alleged Boston Massacre leading up to the American Revolutionary war and Benjamin Franklin. Like old George, Benny was not who you thought he was.

14 thoughts on “America’s war for independence: Revolution or hoax? (Part I)”

Upton Sinclair once wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

If you replace the word ‘salary’ with ‘social status’ you have (in my humble opinion) the main reason otherwise intelligent people refuse to entertain any research or ideas not pre-approved by the ruling elites.

Perhaps, but even so there are plenty of people who call for a redistribution of wealth in the Western world. They are aware that the money is being hoarded by companies etc but unwilling to investigate too deeply for fear of being outcast.

I agree it is an excellent quote and it compliments your argument very well.

Yes, but please consider your country is presided over by the same legal system that utilizes varying legal semantics to ensure that 1% retains ownership. This is why one advocates petitioning of the legal system, rather than ineffectual ‘street’ movements such as ‘Occupy’ to change the laws. The legal system of Uniform Commercial Code represents the ruling elite families Achilles heal. Real economic change will only come about when the proletariat begin to understand the true meaning of the legal terms and conditions that bind them to a system of indentured servitude, both here in the US and the UK.